Posted on 12/13/2005 8:34:28 PM PST by tbird5
The renowned biologist talks about intelligent design, dishonest Christians, and why God is no better than an imaginary friend.
British biologist Richard Dawkins has made a name for himself defending evolution and fighting what he sees as religiously motivated attacks on science. Dr. Dawkins sat down with Beliefnet at the World Congress of Secular Humanism, where his keynote address focused on intelligent design.
You're concerned about the state of education, especially science education. If you were able to teach every person, what would you want people to believe?
I would want them to believe whatever evidence leads them to; I would want them to look at the evidence, judge it on its merits, not accept things because of internal revelation or faith, but purely on the basis of evidence.
Not everybody can evaluate all evidence; we can’t evaluate the evidence for quantum physics. So it does have to be a certain amount of taking things on trust. I have to take what physicists say on trust, for example, because I'm a biologist. But science [has] a system of appraisal, of peer review, so that I trust the physics community to get their act together in a way that I know from the inside. I wish people would put their trust in evidence, not in faith, revelation, tradition, or authority.
(Excerpt) Read more at beliefnet.com ...
I don't see it as cruelty that God asks individuals to make a decision; He is not willing that any should perish but allows each of us to make a decision of our free will.
The Bible says that the heavens declare his handiwork so that men are without excuse. I think when we see God in heaven we'll wonder at our blindness and be filled with awe at his mercy and grace to us.
Are there different levels in hell? Is the torment physical or emotional? How can it be a place of darkness and fire? I don't know, but I know it is clearly a place to avoid.
In addition to escaping hell and receiving the promises of heaven, Christians have peace in this life. I thank God for touching my life.
I would say that, minus the "honest" part - Dawkins probably honestly believes what he's saying, although he's wrong, of course. Which is why you probably don't see many folks rushing to defend him on this - evolution does not disprove God, nor does it require atheism, and for him to suggest that it does either is really exceptionally silly.
I agree that free will is a blessing. But why set up a test that good people, with all the best intentions, can easily fail, as most have done throughout history? And why is free will and its consequences summarily withdrawn after one hundred years?
I think when we see God in heaven we'll wonder at our blindness and be filled with awe at his mercy and grace to us.
I agree wholeheartedly. But we humble creatures of earth do not punish the blind, much less eternally. How could almighty God?
later read
What I don't get is the eternal part of the punishment. In the (now pretty stretched) analogy, if the man later on in prison changes and acknowledges his wrong, will the court grant him mercy?
The analogy breaks down here because the man's suffering is limited to his life span. But that's sort of my point. Even here on earth, heinous criminals can be paroled or pardoned, if they change. Why would God insist on torturing forever someone who repents?
I had a brilliant response created to send to you, then my cat walked across the keyboard, sat down and erased it! Perhaps he didn't agree with what I had written because he spent time watching the keyboard before deleting everything.
I know some things: God is good, he is merciful and loving. I know we only know some things in part now, but someday we will know more fully.
I would not presume to think we are more merciful than God - I know I'm not. I would have erased creation long ago because of man's cruelty to each other! And Hitler would still be alive somewhere in great agony.
The question you proposed for discussion is a corollary to the one about how a good God could allow human suffering. Something else I don't know. God knows the end from the beginning and I'm glad he's in charge rather than me, aren't you?
And your analogy compares apples and oranges.
Zues was man created...mythological in nature.
God is the Alpha and Omega. He exists outside of time, culture and man. He revealed Himself to us through His Word, the Bible. The Bible tells us that all men are aware of His existence via His Creation (Romans 1).
The Bible has been proven to be historically accurate relative to mentioned peoples, places, time and prophecy and has more manuscripts and ancient writings documenting its content than any other religous/ancient book.
Zues has no such history, claim, nor documentation.
The fool says in his heart, "there is no God".
When the evidence does not really exist to support the current TOE theory or elements thereof, evolutionists invent evidence...such as HOX gene mutations in lobe-finned fishes as the biological mechanism in the evolution of fish into land reptiles and/or feathered dinosaurs such as sinosauropteryx and, so on.
Any "scientific" theory related to abiogenesis takes faith over evidence. Noble prize winner, Dr. Crick, demonstrated his faith in proposing that space aliens seeded Earth via rocket ships (see Life Itself complete with drawings of the alleged space alien rocket ships).
Go to TalkOrigins.com and see how many times the evidence for evolution is prefaced with...maybe or perhaps and so on.
Evolutionary scientists put faith in their intellect, power of observation and ability to intepret the natural data within their evolutionary framework and theory (rather than God and His Word).
I'll take God at His Word over Crick's space aliens anyday.
Has Dawkins repented of his disbelief in Jesus Christ as his personal savior?
Has Dawkins repented of his disbelief and mocking of God the Father?
God made it clear what the criteria for spending eternity in heaven is (repentance of sin and disbelief and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, along with His death, burial and resurrection) and when the decision must be made (prior to the judgement).
You don't have to suppose anything. God gave us all of the information we need to spend eternity in heaven via His Word, the Bible.
It is clear, from Scripture, that those who choose to reject/ignore this specific plan for salvation will spend eternity in Hell.
It couldn't be any more fair (actually, it isn't really "fair" as God had to send His Son to the cross to pay for the sin that each one of us couldn't pay ourselves)...God provided a way to eternity in Heaven.
There are intelligent people who have been taught good science and evolution, and who may choose to believe in something religious that may seem to fly in the face of science. What do you make of that?
It’s certainly hard to know what to make of it. I think it’s a betrayal of science. I think they have a religious agenda which, for reasons best known to themselves, they elevate above science.
And he has no agenda?! "elevate above science", "betrayal", what an idiot.
More "genius"
Obviously, a lot of people find the theistic answer satisfying on another level. What do you see as the problem with that level?
What other level?
At whatever level where people say the idea of God is very satisfying.
Well, of course it is.
"What"? followed by "of course"
The response not sat on by your cat was quite brilliant enough :) I agree with most all of what you said.
Some scientists and intellectuals like to give the impression that most of their colleagues are agnostic or atheistic and that the only "intelligent" way to perceive the universe is as a skeptic.
However, most surveys of scientists show the overwhelming majority are believers.
Furthermore, one might speculate whether the skeptical scientists have really made a thorough study of the Bible and the historical evidence.
In 1875 the author of Ben Hur, General Lew Wallace, according to his own testimony, "was not in the least influenced by religious sentiment. I had no convictions about God or Christ. I neither believed nor disbelieved them. The preachers had made no impression upon me. . . Yet when the work was fairly begun (writing Ben Hur), I found myself writing reverentially, and frequently with awe."
In other words, studying the Bible and researching the life of Christ made a believer of him.
How many scientists have jumped to conclusions and settled on a lifetime of unbelief (or indifference), without doing any research on the subject?
Has Dawkins repented of his disbelief and mocking of God the Father?
God made it clear what the criteria for spending eternity in heaven is (repentance of sin and disbelief and faith in His Son, Jesus Christ, along with His death, burial and resurrection) and when the decision must be made (prior to the judgement).
You don't have to suppose anything. God gave us all of the information we need to spend eternity in heaven via His Word, the Bible.
It is clear, from Scripture, that those who choose to reject/ignore this specific plan for salvation will spend eternity in Hell.
It couldn't be any more fair (actually, it isn't really "fair" as God had to send His Son to the cross to pay for the sin that each one of us couldn't pay ourselves)...God provided a way to eternity in Heaven.
We all filter the Truth of the Bible through our own minds and hearts, and what is obvious and clear to one man may be obviously different to another.I also think it's safe to assume that after two thousand years Jesus's words, originally spoken in a different language, may be understood differently now than they were by those blessed to be near him at the time. I don't think it's against the scripture in any way to use one's God given mind to try to understand it as best one can.
It still makes no sense to me that eternal torture could be meted out as punishment by a fair God. Punishment according to one's sins, yes, but why would God be unwilling to accept repentance and acceptance just because they came moments after a deadline? For the transgression of not being quick enough, or of needing the information that only came in the afterlife to decide rightly, I could understand a finite penalty. But keeping a man alive eternally for the sole purpose of inflicting pain on him for that offense, well, I think I would have to be reading Book wrongly to believe that.
And then so too, "forever being pleasured" is wrong too. Eternal Heaven (by some views of "heaven"). At the least for the same reason -- because being outside of time is not "eternal".
And for other reasons, more mighty than the simple absense of "time" one. Why bring a soul into existance for such a waste? It would be a waste either way.
Souls created and continue -- not created to die, nor to suffer or be pleasured either but to grow, to appreciate, to increase, to learn, and to come to love. And for reasons yet unknowable. Here we are, in time, the training ground of souls. Make the most of it.
Biblical Truth is not relative, nor is it impacted by time.
There is historical documentation, manuscripts and copies that show that the Bible we have today, including Jesus's words, is significantly, almost perfectly, accurate.
We can only know God and become familiar with Him by studying His Word....not by pondering in our fallible minds about how we perceive God.
Do you have a specific verse/verses that you are interpreting that suggests that unbelieving sinners get a chance to repent at the Judgement Seat of Christ? Or are you just making an unfounded statement based on how you want to believe salvation and judgement work? (Please cite specific passages.)
According to the Bible, the only sin that seperates you from God, for eternity in Hell, is unbelief in, and rejection of, Jesus Christ and His attoning work on the cross to pay for your sins.
There is no longer any faith required when you are standing before Christ being judged...but what is even more amazing is that even when people know who Jesus is, by sight, they will still reject Him (just like the pharisees did).
What specific part of the "Book" are you reading that leads you to your conclusions?
Jesus clearly said that He was the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by Him. People can freely accept God's way to eternal life in heaven with Him or they can reject it. The choice, and their eternity, is dependent on how they choose. That is what Scripture says.
Matthew 25:46 "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Hebrews 6:2 "Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgement".
Hebrews 9:27 "Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgement."
Jude 7 "In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah, and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion, They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire."
Revelation 20:12 "Then I saw the great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyones's name was not found wriiten in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."
2 Thessalonians 1:5 "This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angel He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of His power on the day he comes to be glorified in His holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed."
I was thinking that there are not new kinds of evidence in support of evolution but just more of the same. More fossils have been found but it is still only fossils; the same type of evidence. So there is nothing new in that respect. I used *quality* and *quantity* for lack of better terms than I could think of at the moment and the meaning didn't come across clearly. I hope that helps make more sense of what I meant.
I don't deny by any means that the fossil record exists, and that there is plenty of evidence to support the age of the Earth. If you don't know from some of my posts, I'm not a YEC. I can even understand why and how people think the fossil record supports the ToE, but I don't accept it as a fact. I don't believe that there is any real contradiction between what the Bible teaches and what science discovers. If there appears to be one, then I think that it's just a matter of; we don't know how they fit together *YET*.
I think an article entitled as follows would be more interesting:
The Problem with Richard Dawkins: Interview with God
God has done everything possible for mankind to avoid hell except do it for him, as in forcing people. He warns, commands, pleads, even died in our place, yet He won't make that decision for someone. There's nothing left if someone rejects a clearly offered, easily accessible GIFT.
Interview with GOD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.